T Nation

The Liar Clinton: Shocked?


Article from yesterday. Clinton lied. Again. Of course, he didn't lie about anything important, right? That's the mantra, isn't it? Clinton lied about sex. Bush lied, kids died! Clinton lied/lies about everything. Let's be honest.

So. My real question is this: Will Olbermann do a fifteen minute rant against Novak this week? Will more than 12 people see it if he does? Questions for the ages.

Clinton blew it on bin Laden: ex-CIA official

October 2, 2006
BY ROBERT NOVAK Sun-Times Columnist
A week after Bill Clinton lashed out at anchor Chris Wallace's questioning on "Fox News Sunday," prominent Democrats were still debating among themselves whether the former president's performance was good or bad for their party. But they all disregarded a harsh but widely overlooked rebuke of Clinton the next morning.

On Sunday, Clinton assailed Wallace for "your nice little conservative hit job on me" in questioning his determination as president to get Osama bin Laden. On CBS's "Early Show" Monday, the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit during the Clinton administration, Michael Scheuer, said the al-Qaida leader "is alive today" because Clinton and his top lieutenants refused to kill him. "It's just an incredible kind of situation," said Scheuer, "for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."

Scheuer's blunt remonstrance goes to the heart of what probably impelled Clinton's finger pointing on national television. Rather than attempting to shape the midterm campaign, as Republicans believe, he was interested in protecting his legacy. No former president in the last half-century has seemed so sensitive to critical assessments of his tenure.

That was demonstrated in the recent New Yorker article about Clinton by the magazine's editor, David Remnick. He reported a 20-minute Clinton tirade, at a dinner with virtual strangers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, about the Whitewater investigation that led to his impeachment. Earlier, Remnick described Clinton as "infuriated by the way the [Bush] administration's rhetoric painted anyone who criticized any aspect of its policy in Iraq as weak on national security."

Clinton grows doubly infuriated by implication of such weakness by him during his presidency. Although the intensity of his outburst against Wallace was unplanned, he was ready to upbraid anybody who questioned his performance. Unexpected by him was a rebuttal by a CIA professional never confused with being a Bush acolyte.

Scheuer resigned from the CIA in 2004 after 22 years' service to publish Imperial Hubris -- a withering assault on performances by both Clinton and Bush. As a critic of Israel and Saudi Arabia alike, Scheuer fits no conventional ideological mold.

In his role of CBS News terrorism analyst, Scheuer was asked to comment on Clinton's Sunday performance. To claim that the CIA could not verify that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, said Scheuer, "the former president seems able to deny facts with impunity."

Scheuer continued: "He defames the CIA ... and the men and women who risked their lives to give their administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden." Asked whether Bush was no less responsible for letting bin Laden escape from Tora Bora in Afghanistan, Scheuer replied: "The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration had one chance that they botched and the Clinton administration had eight to 10 chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora, our forces were on the ground."

What Clinton as president did or did not do about bin Laden is less relevant to Democratic politicians than its impact on the midterm elections. While most applauded the former president for energizing Democratic voters, one of the party's shrewdest strategists told me it was a mistake to remove political focus from the biggest GOP liability: the war in Iraq.

Republican insiders, meanwhile, saw a Democratic plot, mapped by Clinton's longtime political advisers, James Carville and Paul Begala, to blunt the GOP comeback. On NBC's "Today" program, they agreed that their chief had just stiffened the backbone of Democrats.

Actually, Scheuer delivered a message uncongenial to Democrats and Republicans: "Both President Bush and President Clinton have been very misleading to the American people, telling them we're at war because of our freedoms and our liberties and because of gender equality and because of elections. None of that is true. We're at war because of what we do in the Islamic world." Those words go unheard by politicians seeking advantage in the midterm elections.


No one will pay attention to this.



Novak isn't a unbaised writer at all... you realize that right? You might want to investigate the concept of "word games" to see how statements get changed and then countered.

Fuck, no wonder I can't find any kool-aid on the store shelves.

For all the times the right has tried to say that people are crazy when they want to and try to believe every bad thing about Bush, the same can be said for you clowns that are desperate to believe Clinton is the devil.


Novak's entire article was referencing Michael Scheuer's retort on CBS' "Early Show". This is the same Scheuer that was head of the OBL unit of Clinton's CIA and author of 'Imperial Hubris', which throws President Bush under the bus for his decisions as well.

Try reading the material:

"The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration had one chance that they botched and the Clinton administration had eight to 10 chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora, our forces were on the ground."

Different topic, same old Vroom.


You are letting your bias prevent you from reading objective facts. Vroom, that is beneath you.


I hate that when I vote, I have to choose the lesser of two evils. Will we EVER have someone we can really admire and a party we can really admire? What ever happened to the Contract with America and Term Limits too?

Damn, they all just plain fucking suck donkey balls.


It isn't about Novak. It is about Scheuer, who is no fan of Bush either.

Just like when Doogie posted Richard Clarke quotes that were not flattering to Clinton you guys ignored them because Rush Limbaugh reported it.


i'm glad someone pointed that out. in any event, novak is no limbaugh. he too has been pretty critical of bush over the past few year. primairly on iraq.

the point here is that you have another person saying that clinton is a liar. that is what he does and what he's always done. his supporters know it and state it. he lies. his marriage is a lie. he lied on the campaign trail. he lied to american. more than once. he lied again. mostly his supporters say, 'he didn't lie about anything important.' or 'yeah. but he's brilliant'. well..he lies about everything. he is a serial liar. second...he's smart. brilliant? i reserve that for people like stephen hawking.


He never 'lied' with that woman...he was sitting in a chair. ;0


I thought Rush Limbaugh did that already.

Damn right !


Scheuer was challenged factually IN THE INTERVIEW!

Sorry Hack, but Clinton was telling the truth in the interview...Even Wallace seemed dismayed that nothing was challenged on Sunday by his guests.

Hilarious though Condi's been busted in HUGE lies the past week and you didn't mention it...

Former CIA director George Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that he had warned of an imminent threat from al-Qaeda in a July 2001 meeting with Condoleezza Rice, adding that he believed Rice took the warning seriously, according to a transcript of the interview and the recollection of a commissioner who was there.

Tenet's statements to the commission in January 2004 confirm the outlines of an event in a new book by Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that has been disputed by some Bush administration officials. But the testimony also is at odds with Woodward's depiction of Tenet and former CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black as being frustrated that "they were not getting through to Rice" after the July 10, 2001, meeting.

Rice angrily rejected those assertions yesterday, saying that it was "incomprehensible" that she would have ignored such explicit intelligence from senior CIA officials and that she received no warning at the meeting of an attack within the United States.

Turns out...Condi was lying. Lying real bad. Really, really bad.

See Hack, Condi lied...people died.
So please stop trying to bust Clinton telling the truth to Wallace would ya?


They're all assholes. Since so many are disgusted with the 2 parties, someone might start a new party, like Ross Perot almost did.

Let's hope its initials aren't NSDAP. :wink:


nice, headhunter. although, i would assume that 'NSDAP' is lost on most here. I don't think they are aware of what the more common reference is.


I figured it for a rhetorical joke but since you insisted...

So, you guys want a Nazi party to run this country?

What a brilliant idea!


sure. sure. because even mentioning such a dirty, SCARY word means you want it. even mentioning it is....hurtful. right?


The left wingnuttery thinks that the Nazi's are in charge.

*You were sarcastic and so was I.


looking at today's world and thinking forward about it, this is the only part of that article with real value. imo.


This was in my suggested reads and it caught my eye that 10 years ago Shrillary was also being knocked here on TN as a liar.

So I didn’t read the thread, but look at the list of respondents - a gallery of rogues (including TB23 hehe).